Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/mail

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost>]

Hi,

From: Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>, Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:29:03 -0400

> 
> Pierre Pronchery <khorben%defora.org@localhost> writes:
> 
>> On 23/03/2016 22:50, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 06:41:35PM +0100, Tobias Nygren wrote:
>>>> I've asked before and I shall ask again:
>>>> Why do we have both versions?
>>>> Is there some specific use-case that gnupg 2.0 can do but gnupg 2.1 cannot?
>>>> What are the criteria that need to be met before we can ditch gnupg 2.0?
>>> 
>>> Upstream says that 2.0.x is stable and 2.1.x is development.
>>> Get upstream to release 2.2 and we get rid of this problem :)
>>
>> Then I would suggest we default to gnupg2 for the moment. In the case of
>> thunderbird-enigmail, it is a leaf package, and it looks like there is
>> no previous (pkgsrc) release relying on gnupg21 for this package.
>>
>> @pkgsrc-pmc: can we change the default option to gnupg2 there?
> 
> First, I would defer to ryoon who has been doing all the work on
> enigmail.  While pkgsrc generally uses stable versions, there may be
> some reason in this case.
> 
> Then, assuming ryoon's agreement:
> 
> From a pmc/freeze viewpoint, It's fine to change the option default,
> since this is fixing what is arguably a bug, and is only changing a
> leaf.

I have no objection to change enigmail default GnuPG to 2.0 from 2.1.
I will change the default soon, because this change is already approved.

Thank you.

--
Ryo ONODERA // ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3